There is a huge overpopulation problem in the world, and i was wondering what everyone thought about my theory. The theory is that if systematically decided to kill certain people, preferably some newborns or others that have not yet lost the ability to reproduce, it would solve a huge problem. If we do not do something, and let our population continue to grow at exponential rates, then eventually, probably soon, we will reach our limits in natural resources, there would be huge food deficits, like there currently is in many third world countries. This will probably grow as our population grows, and will cause chaos, making everyone even less willing to share the resources, allowing certain people to live, while everyone else will starve to death. Also, because we are industrial now, there are even less farms and food producing areas, only food processing, which is a huge difference, even if you do not realize it. The difference between the two of them is that food producing and agricultural create new food, but industry brings about food processing, which just changes the already made and produced food into other things, possibly causing even less food. with this problem, we need to do something to get rid of the overpopulation and an even bigger dip in population then what i am suggesting will occur. My suggestion starts with what i wrote earlier, about a LOW-LEVEL infanticide, along with pro-abortion views so that the people who will be born into these problems wont have to deal with them. We should create a one-child policy as the main thing, along with stop sending support and rations and help to third world countries, to have the governments that have already proven incapable of supporting themselves be gone by the time of mass crisis.

ThomasHobbes wrote:The theory is that if systematically decided to kill certain people, preferably some newborns or others that have not yet lost the ability to reproduce, it would solve a huge problem.

So you think we should just start murdering a huge number of people so there will be more food later on? That seems more than a little extreme...

ThomasHobbes wrote:If we do not do something, and let our population continue to grow at exponential rates, then eventually, probably soon, we will reach our limits in natural resources, there would be huge food deficits, like there currently is in many third world countries. This will probably grow as our population grows, and will cause chaos, making everyone even less willing to share the resources, allowing certain people to live, while everyone else will starve to death.

That's true, but the thing about "some live while other die" is exactly what you just described about killing people. Only that was more direct.

ThomasHobbes wrote:Also, because we are industrial now, there are even less farms and food producing areas, only food processing, which is a huge difference, even if you do not realize it. The difference between the two of them is that food producing and agricultural create new food, but industry brings about food processing, which just changes the already made and produced food into other things, possibly causing even less food. with this problem, we need to do something to get rid of the overpopulation and an even bigger dip in population then what i am suggesting will occur.

Which is why many people choose to become vegetarians/vegans, to minimise their wastefulness.

ThomasHobbes wrote:My suggestion starts with what i wrote earlier, about a LOW-LEVEL infanticide, along with pro-abortion views so that the people who will be born into these problems wont have to deal with them.

Just killing children isn't going to help, unless it's on an enormous scale. At which point you have to ask yourself, "is it worth killing millions or even billions of people so that the ones left have an easier existence?"

ThomasHobbes wrote:We should create a one-child policy as the main thing

That seems like a more reasonable idea, and realistic as China has proven.

ThomasHobbes wrote:stop sending support and rations and help to third world countries

Again, just letting billions starve to death so richer countries have more food strikes me as incredibly unethical, under any circumstances. People don't deserve to die for something out of their control.

ThomasHobbes wrote:to have the governments that have already proven incapable of supporting themselves be gone by the time of mass crisis.

What do you mean, "gone"? Entire continents full of people won't vanish overnight. More likely, less economically developed countries will collectively declare war on western civilisation. And no matter how many nukes you might have, that's something that can't be stopped.

While I agree that drastic measures need to be taken to save our species and planet, I think your ideas are unrealistic and totally unethical by any measures.

I'm great that we can establish that you have no grasp of how things work in this world, that will make my argument easier.

Killing babies so that you won't end up killing each other is...no different. Except in this case, the cure is worse than the disease.

We don't solve overpopulation by eating babies. We solve it by figuring out how to use our space more effectively.

And you have obviously no idea what processed means. To make processed things, you still have to grow stuff. We are not so advanced that we do not have farmers anymore.

Everyone wants to have children and continue their legacy. The one-child act was only necessary in China, where they have a population problem. This causes many problems and a lot of work to ensure that the rule is obeyed...especially when something like the swine flu takes people's only children.

Before you make hitler-esque theories, do some research and learn something.

For the safety of all of us, I sincerely hope you do not ever get in a position of power.

Might I ask where in the world you live to be making such a grand claim as "overpopulation" ?

I live in Africa, I was born in Africa, but I haven't always lived in Africa.We have people living in conditions where quite literally your entire house is built on 4 square meters.

I doubt you've seen any of it and let me add this, those people living in little 4 by 4 houses, are a lot more sharing than your neighbours, I don't care where you live. People tend to get together during tough times. You want to cut support to third world countries? By that I do take it that your from America, take a look outside, see everything built there? The foundation was built by slaves. Where did you get those again?

Think about it.

You might know what's going on in your neighbourhood, but as far as the rest of the world is concerned, do a bit more research and come back with a better answer.

I do agree that the world is becoming a little too populated, but people are just concentrated into certain regions where people don't care, such as Africa. If America or Britain was as populated as Africa it would cause an uproar and people would be doing drastic things such as mass murder in an attempt to cut the population.

You can't argue that the global population is increasing, but its not anywhere near a crisis. People just need to be aware of the population and how they affect it.

I think that a lot of people tend to draw the conclusion that the world is overpopulated based on the fact that some 20,000 people or so die daily of starvation; I actually don't think that is the proper conclusion. If people shared more there would be plenty of food to go around for everyone--agricultural advancements continue to exponentially advance the amount of crop production, which confounds the claims of Malthus (the originator of the preposterous claim that war, famine, etc. is cleansing for society).

America, for instance, has a problem with people getting too fat, while some thousands of people die daily from starvation. It's due to GREED, not overpopulation.

"I'm going to get into your sister. I'm going to get my hands on your daughter." ~Gatito

Jonathon Swift - 'A Modest Proposal' wrote:I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee or a ragout.